I don't know if many of you are aware of this but it is serious business and will effect our hunting heritage. Please read this and if you can, contact anyone on the list to voice your opinion and if you can afford anything to help this family, please send it. Even if it's $1.00. Thank you, David

http://www.idahoforwildlife.co...izzly%20incident.pdf

Interested to see how this one plays out.

I think he has every right to kill the bear to protect his kids.

Well when you invite the Government into your life,problems will follow.The problem was taken care of,why call up anyone???

OLBIKER, good question, but consider this: he was doing what an honest citizen is supposed to do. Had he not called, they (Fed's) would have a bigger case against him IF it ever got out. Most westerners understand the SSS factor. I doubt this family will receive much financial support and probably go bankrupt trying to defend themselves from the Fed's. Evil is as evil does.....

The problem is that doing the right thing is now doing the wrong thing. This is what is called a strict liability statute. "Take" (isn't that polite language?) a bear and you can get up to 1 year federal prison. There's no mens rea or guilty mind requirement---no requirement that you do it intentionally, recklessly, or even negligently. You killed the bear, you have committed a crime. Even if it was a complete accident, you've committed the crime. Moreover, there's no defensive provision. He cannot assert as a defense that he was defending himself or others. Now, that's a lousy choice. Bear spray didn't work? Okay. Mauling or prison? Prison or mauling? Hmmm. Let me think a bit....

This is part of what many people find a disturbing trend in the United States today. The massive expansion of the federal government has included the creation of many of these strict liability offenses. It's happening to a much lesser degree at the state level. Traditionally, such offenses have been limited to things quite, relatively speaking, minor things affecting the public safety. Now, we're moving toward conduct based crimes not intent based ones. Which isn't itself the problem. The problem is that we're criminalizing conduct that can be done accidentally. Robbery is pretty hard to commit accidentally. But picking up arrowheads in a national forest can be done by simply not knowing the boundary lines.

Hopefully, this turns out reasonably well for this man and his family. He does have a federal public defender representing him.

LWD

The kids were safely in the house BEFORE he shot the bear the first time. The second time he shot the bear because he allowed his dog to pursue the bear and harass the bear. The bear turned because of the dog. He was in the wrong. The bear was 40 yards away when he shot the bear. The bear was not charging him.

IS it ok to shoot a bear that is attacking the 4H pigs? I doubt it.

Unfortunately, he fired needlessly.

Here is a recent update. I bolded part to show that at least there are some involved with common sense. It's hard to draw conclusions based on the few "facts" presented, but at this point I think that there was a mistake in shooting the bear and a bigger mistake in charging the man. Two wrongs don't make a right.



From Boundary County Idaho News
"County Commissioners side with defendant in grizzly death
August 19, 2011

Arraignment for a Boundary County man facing federal felony charges for killing a grizzly bear at his home May 8 has been scheduled for 10 a.m. Tuesday, August 23, in Federal District Court in Coeur d’Alene.

And while County Commissioners have been working with state and federal agencies for years to see the grizzly bear population recover, in this case, they’re standing beside the defendant, Jeremy Hill, 33, and have drafted a letter, which is being sent to Idaho Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter, the Idaho U.S. Congressional delegation, and the Idaho District 1 Delegation, seeking to have the charges dismissed.


“In this case, a grizzly sow and two cubs were on Hill’s property more than five miles outside any recovery zone,” said Commission chairman Ron Smith. “Jeremy and his wife have three young children, and the bears posed a threat to his family. It is the unanimous conviction of this board that Jeremy Hill had not only the right but the obligation to protect his children and his family.”


So, apparently, did local Idaho Fish and Game and U.S. Fish and Wildlife enforcement officers, who did not recommend that charges be brought. That recommendation was over-ruled in Washington, D.C., and the charge was filed August 8 by U.S. Attorney Wendy Olson.

If convicted, the penalty for killing an animal listed as threatened under the endangered species act is up to one year in prison and a fine of up to $50,000."



...

Sounds to me that Ms. Wendy Olsen needs to be slathered in peanut butter and honey and chained to a stake in northern Idaho, see how she likes big bears that are an imminent threat.

It is kind of like you know if the bear isn't actual chewing on you then how do you know it was going to.

Poor poor bear how dare mere humans live in the woods.

They are just freindly bears doing what soft furry forest critters do.

What more BS can one say.

If a bear is messing around ones house and getting into stuff it is a danger to who ever is around.

Idaho community raises over $19,000 to aid family man charged with a felony.

More than a pig in a poke